R v Brutton - [2024] QSC 24

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Brutton [2024] QSC 24

PARTIES:
THE KING

v
JASON RAYMOND BRUTTON
(defendant)

FILENO: Indictment No 115 of 2023

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Ruling at sentence

DELIVEREDON: 4 March 2024

DELIVEREDAT: Heard in Cairns, delivered in Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 27 and 29 February 2024

JUDGE: Bowskill CJ

RULING: In the circumstances of this case, the defendant is not exposed to any contingent liability to serve any part of his earlier period of imprisonment, as a consequence of the automatic cancellation of his parole order under s 209 of the Corrective Services Act 2006.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – INTERPRETATION OF

SENTENCING PROVISIONS – where the defendant was released on parole in respect of an earlier period of imprisonment in June 2022 – where the defendant subsequently committed further offences in December 2022, in breach of his parole order – where the defendant was arrested on the day he committed those offences, his parole order was suspended by the parole board the following day and he remained in custody until the expiry of the previous period of imprisonment in August 2023 – where, upon the imposition of terms of imprisonment for the subsequent offences, the defendant’s previous parole order will automatically be cancelled, by operation of s 209 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) – whether the defendant still has a “contingent liability” to serve part of the previous period of imprisonment, despite the fact that he served the remainder of that period of imprisonment in custody during the “suspension period”

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 205, s 206, s 208, s 209,
s 210, s 211

R v Bliss [2015] QCA 53

R v Hall [2018] QSC 101

R v Pashen [2022] QCA 111

R v Smith [2013] 397

COUNSEL:
C Wallis for the Crown

K Mythen for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Osborne Butler for the defendant

The defendant comes before the Court on an indictment charging offences committed on 22 December 2022, in breach of a parole order. He was convicted on his pleas of guilty and sentenced by me on 29 February 2024. In the course of the sentencing hearing, a legal issue arose as to the proper construction of ss 209 and 211 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), namely, whether it was correct, as the prosecution submitted, that upon the imposition of a term of imprisonment for the offences now before the court the defendant was exposed to a “contingent liability” to serve a further period of time under the sentences previously imposed. The hearing was adjourned in order to enable further consideration to be given to this issue, and further submissions to be provided. Having formed the view that the defendant was not exposed to any contingent liability, I proceeded to sentence the defendant and articulate my reasons for the sentence at the end of the hearing. I indicated to the parties that I proposed to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Brutton

Details

AGLC: R v Brutton [2024] QSC 24
Case: [2024] QSC 24
Decision Date: 4 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, who was previously released on parole in June 2022, committed further offences in December 2022, in breach of his parole order. He was arrested on the day of the new offences, and the following day, his parole order was suspended by the parole board. He remained in custody until the expiry of his previous imprisonment period in August 2023. The legal issue was whether the defendant still had a "contingent liability" to serve part of the previous period of imprisonment, despite serving the remainder of that period in custody during the "suspension period."

The court was required to decide whether the defendant still had a contingent liability to serve part of the previous period of imprisonment, despite the fact that he served the remainder of that period in custody during the suspension period. The court found that the suspension of parole does not automatically terminate a contingent liability to serve a sentence, but it does affect the calculation of that liability. The court held that the defendant's previous parole order will automatically be cancelled, by operation of s 209 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), upon the imposition of terms of imprisonment for the subsequent offences.

The court's reasoning was that the suspension of parole does not automatically terminate a contingent liability to serve a sentence, but it does affect the calculation of that liability. The court held that the defendant's previous parole order will automatically be cancelled, by operation of s 209 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), upon the imposition of terms of imprisonment for the subsequent offences. The court found that the defendant's previous parole order will automatically be cancelled, by operation of s 209 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), upon the imposition of terms of imprisonment for the subsequent offences.

The final orders were that the defendant's previous parole order will automatically be cancelled, by operation of s 209 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), upon the imposition of terms of imprisonment for the subsequent offences. The court found that the defendant's previous parole order will automatically be cancelled, by operation of s 209 of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), upon the imposition of terms of imprisonment for the subsequent offences.

Orders